Evaluation of energy economic optimization models using multi-criteria decision-making approach
Achieving high performance in energy systems is crucial for sustainability. Energy economy optimization (EEO) models offer transparent analysis for energy policy decision-making. However, evaluating and benchmarking these models is a complex multicriteria decision making (MCDM) problem. Challenges i...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Elsevier Ltd
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Achieving high performance in energy systems is crucial for sustainability. Energy economy optimization (EEO) models offer transparent analysis for energy policy decision-making. However, evaluating and benchmarking these models is a complex multicriteria decision making (MCDM) problem. Challenges include multiple criteria, data variation, and the importance of diverse criteria. This study develops an integrated MCDM approach to evaluate and benchmark EEO models. The methodology involves three phases. First, 12 commonly used EEO models and five evaluation criteria (software licenses, public source code, redistribution, public source data, and commercial software) are identified to create an evaluation decision matrix. Second, the fuzzy-weighted zero-consistency method (FWZIC) is used to evaluate and assign weights to the criteria. These weights are utilized in the benchmarking phase. Third, individual and group fuzzy decision by opinion score method (FDOSM) techniques are integrated to benchmark the EEO models based on the weights acquired. The FWZIC weighting reveals that the public source code criterion has the highest weight (0.3347), while redistribution has the lowest weight (0.1021). The group FDOSM results show that the OSeMOSYS model ranks first with the highest score (0.1595), while the DNE21+, MARIA, and MESSAGE models have the lowest score (0.0646), ranking them last. Systematic ranking, sensitivity ranking, and comparative analysis verify the proposed evaluation and benchmarking framework. ? 2024 Elsevier Ltd |
|---|